Ramirez v. Certain Individuals et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2024) Copy of order mailed to plaintiff.Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) Modified on 9/26/2024 (cl, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ELIAS TORRES RAMIREZ, Case No. 24-cv-03323-RS Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 Self-represented plaintiff Elias Torres Ramirez filed this complaint and an application for 16 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The matter was randomly assigned to a magistrate judge who 17 granted plaintiff’s IFP application and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E). 18 Plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the 19 screening order by August 30, 2024. Plaintiff was warned failure to file a timely first amended 20 21 22 23 24 complaint would result in a recommendation that his action be dismissed. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and the time to do so expired. The magistrate judge has recommended that plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not filed any response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Good cause appearing, the magistrate judge’s recommendation is hereby adopted and this action is dismissed. 25 26 27 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 5 Dated: September 26, 2024 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG Chief United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 2 24-cv-03323-RS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?